RAH Reading Group - Puppet Masters

[TTBRAHWTMG]

I do think though, if he were brought forward to 2007, he would be shocked by the all-pervading cult of worthless celebrity that so many people today regard as important. Can you imagine, for example, what he'd think of Paris Hilton?

A bit off subject from your intent maybe...but this reminds me of a line in the introduction to The Heinlein Interview. Schulman is recounting to his friends..."I'd mentioned to Mr. Heinlein how much I'd admired his work since childhood and he'd replied that hero worship wasn't always the best thing for the hero."

 

[Pyan]

2/ One of the most effective parts of the book (in my opinion) is how Heinlein depicts the Titans taking over control without the general population even being aware of it. Considering the times, do you think the Titans could have been representative of something other than aliens?

Oh, yes - I'm sure it was a conscious effort to demonise the threat of creeping Communism. But it's well disguised, and the sub-text doesn't affect the story, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Urlik]

I think Heinlein would be shocked by the lack of advancement in space travel/colonisation and in day to day life, by how little public and private transport has improved, although there are some attempts being made to automate cars.

 

[j d worthington]

2/ One of the most effective parts of the book (in my opinion) is how Heinlein depicts the Titans taking over control without the general population even being aware of it. Considering the times, do you think the Titans could have been representative of something other than aliens?

Even though I'm coming to the discussion quite late (I've not yet had a chance to sit down with the book, and am planning on getting to it later today), I'd like to address this point, and Pyan's response to it (as well as Urlik's comment).

First, on one level, I'd agree with Pyan -- it was definitely aimed at Communism. After Heinlein's experience in the U.S.S.R., he went from being somewhat wary but relatively neutral (albeit feeling it was a system that would collapse under its own weight) to outright violent distrust and dislike of Communism. In that, he was very much a part of the time. But I'd say it went beyond that into a warning against any kind of either collectivist or totalitarian philosophy or regime, and -- again -- very strongly against that hive mentality... the "specialization is for insects" taken in a somewhat different direction, that of forced uniformity. This would apply to any religion, or any government, which required such brainwashing (or mind control, or whatever you choose to call the significance of the metaphorical Titans). So I'd not limit it only to the Communists, though they are -- given the time period -- the most obvious example.

And Urlik... No, I don't think he'd be shocked at all. In his later books, he was already quite aware of that recidivist trend in modern life, and savagely parodies it in books like Friday. While it's been a while since I've read his later books, my strong impression that, while he still believed in our potential, he was becoming quite convinced that America was not only failing the test, but would continue to do so until a major collapse brought about a dire need for change. This both saddened and angered him, I think, and he still argued strongly against it; but I'd say it was a pervasive aspect of some of his later work.

Anyone on here have his book on politics, Take Back Your Government? I'd like to lay my hands on a copy, but it's rather pricey at present, and the only library copy around here is at a library that's being renovated, so it's not currently available. However, I'm wondering if it might clarify some of these issues, as well, as so much of Heinlein's writing (as with any writer with a strongly cohesive worldview) is interrelated.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

First, on one level, I'd agree with Pyan -- it was definitely aimed at Communism. After Heinlein's experience in the U.S.S.R., he went from being somewhat wary but relatively neutral (albeit feeling it was a system that would collapse under its own weight) to outright violent distrust and dislike of Communism. In that, he was very much a part of the time. But I'd say it went beyond that into a warning against any kind of either collectivist or totalitarian philosophy or regime, and -- again -- very strongly against that hive mentality... the "specialization is for insects" taken in a somewhat different direction, that of forced uniformity. This would apply to any religion, or any government, which required such brainwashing (or mind control, or whatever you choose to call the significance of the metaphorical Titans). So I'd not limit it only to the Communists, though they are -- given the time period -- the most obvious example.

I agree with you here, JD. I do think, though, that Heinlein felt balance is required. There needs to be some aspects of all sides to create that balance. Everything left, everything right...that's when you get into real trouble. In fact he states in Take Back Your Government that if there weren't elements of communism present in our society that "we would almost be forced to create some". He felt that this element was almost like a canary for our society..."any social field or group in which Communists make real strides in gaining members or acceptance of their doctrines...is in bad shape from real and not imaginary social ills; the rest of us should take emergency, drastic action to investigate and correct the trouble. Unfortunately we are more prone to ignore the sick spot thus disclosed and content ourselves with calling out more cops".

And Urlik... No, I don't think he'd be shocked at all. In his later books, he was already quite aware of that recidivist trend in modern life, and savagely parodies it in books like Friday. While it's been a while since I've read his later books, my strong impression that, while he still believed in our potential, he was becoming quite convinced that America was not only failing the test, but would continue to do so until a major collapse brought about a dire need for change. This both saddened and angered him, I think, and he still argued strongly against it; but I'd say it was a pervasive aspect of some of his later work.

I think I have to agree with both you and Urlik here. I think Urlik is correct that the 1951 Heinlein that wrote Puppet Masters would have been shocked at our lack of space colonization. At this point in his career he was still quite the optimist. Having said that, JD, you are absolutely correct that Heinlein's views on this change with experience. After experiencing some of the "space race" he predicted that we would hit the moon and then fall into a long period with no space exploration. As far as "failing the test", again I think you are bang on. As he lived through rapid population growth, and witnessed what he believed to be wholesale abdication of personal responsibility in the average citizen, he grew very depressed and believed that America was "failing the test". He was also firmly anti-conscription and witnessed the VietNam era and grew further disillusioned. I don't have The Robert Heinlein Interview in front of me, but I believe it is in there when he has a line about how any state that must rely on conscription to have its citizens fight for its survival or defense does not to deserve to exist...and I believe he was talking about the U.S. and VietNam specifically here (the book is at work, I'll look the quote up later).

Anyone on here have his book on politics, Take Back Your Government? However, I'm wondering if it might clarify some of these issues, as well, as so much of Heinlein's writing (as with any writer with a strongly cohesive worldview) is interrelated.

Yes (I told you I'm a freak completist) however this book is not the right one to turn to for his thoughts on this discussion. It is written in 1946 and at this point, while he already saw abidcation of responsibility as a growing problem, he was still very optimistic about America and its potential. Take Back Your Government is much more of a practical guide for how the average citizen can, should, and has a responsibility to get involved with politics...especially at a local level. Many anecdotal stories about how a small group of motivated people (of which he was a part of) forced some pretty major changes to the political atmosphere of California. As I said, it does illustrate the point that he was concerned and even depressed about abdication of personal responsibility in the field of politics...however I believe The Robert Heinlein Interview by Schulman is the more appropriate book to look to for illustrating your "failing the test" point. Again, I don't have it in front of me, but this interview was conducted in 1973 I believe, and some of his optimism has been lost and there is more evidence of the "failing the test" sentiment. Having said this, I don't think he would have gone as far as believing that a "major collapse" was inevitable, but that is my opinion, not necessarily fact.

 

[Weakforchocolate]

I dont want to get too involved on Puppet Masters, I dont have a copy and havent read it in a while. Im getting a The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and will join in more on the next one.

And I dont mean to make you uncomfortable, TT, using stuff I know about you outside of Chronicles in here. I just wanted to say that Im a little surprised that you agreed with Communism as what the slugs stood for. I seem to remember a pretty impassioned theory that you laid out for me that they represented an analogy of WWII, and at the time you had me convinced.

Have you changed your mind, or have you expanded your theory over the years? That was a while ago!

Sorry for butting in, Ill wait for TCWWTW now.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

theory that you laid out for me that they represented an analogy of WWII

Hi again WFC...first of all please don't apologize for jumping in...the more the merrier! Secondly, you do have a good memory. That is one of the things about these kinds of theories regarding what an author "intended" to convey. There are multiple ideas and outcomes that can be supported by different parts of what you read. The fact that Heinlein was writing fiction means that he may have incorporated several elements of each or we could be off base completely and he had NO intention, but rather his version of aliens subconsciously stemmed from what he feared personally.

I still believe that there are many elements of the Puppet Masters that could be considered as an analogy or allegory (not sure which is more appropriate here) of the events leading up to and concluding with WWII. The general nature of the Titans: hitting the scene; turning a few while fooling others; building up strength to a point where they felt they no longer needed to be concerned about the secrecy of their intent; etc. could be representative of pre WWII fascism and totalitarianism. The nazis crept up in popularity for years partially through disguising their true intentions, until they felt that they controlled enough of the infrastructure that the average citizen could not impede them, and they then quickly bared their teeth, exactly what the Titans did.

The way that they have to struggle in Puppet Masters first of all to convince anybody that there was a threat; then convince people of the severity of the threat even while it was spreading rapidly right under their noses; then to force consensus on how to address the threat (with internal opposition along the way); then suffering defeat after defeat and setback after setback for the longest while, making it look like they were on the brink of failure; then achieving some kind of stalemate; and then achieving further resolve and consensus; and then finally turning back the tide and achieving victory. All of these elements COULD be considered representative of the events of WWII. (The impassioned version of the argument was alot more specific and was accompanied by numerous quotes from Heinlein and historical texts if I recall, but that pretty much covers the main bases).

Heinlein wrote this book in 1951, only a few short years after WWII, and he had a particular anti-Nazi passion after living through those events (see Galileo 1947), and they very well may have had some impact on the story.

Having said that, in 1951 in post WWII geo-politics, fear of communism was on the rise. Heinlein did appear to already have a strong distaste for "the hive mentality" as JD called it. Heinlein could have presented the Titans as representative of what he considered the insidiousness of communism, how it would affect peoples minds and change them, how you often couldn't recognize these changes, etc. There is a strong argument that he did indeed write them as such.

You have to remember however, that in 1951, while there was a fear of communism, it is still early in the ratcheting up of the cold war. We are still a decade away from the Cuban missle crisis here. We are also still a decade ahead of when Heinlein made his trip to the Soviet Union, which is when I believe his personal fears transferred from naziism to communism, and therefore their relative influence on his writing.

In short, I still personally tend to believe in the WWII scenario rather than communism, but we can't KNOW for sure, and both ARE plausible. It is most likely a mixture of the two, with the Titans themselves representing Communism, while the invasion plot line is modeled on WWII, how Heinlein would have witnessed an attempted global takeover. I chose not to debate the communist assertion as I thought JD, even though not touching on WWII, did a good job stretching the theme and covered the broader subject with his post.

 

[Weakforchocolate]

Thanks for running it by me again, that is bringing my memory back. Im sorry for personal note in here but my PM isnt working yet. Did you get my email? Just in case, my main question was that after reviewing the threads I noticed that you know Mollygurl through "mutual friends". Do I know her?

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Sorry WFC...I haven't even checked my email. Weekend brings bigger time commitments with kids...skating lessons, our hike, etc plus I've immersed myself in Chronicles and reading lately...lol. I'll check and respond tonight after they are in bed. Short answer...no...different part of the province, nothing to do with my automotive days. I'll email you.

 

[Razorback]

I thought I'd put a couple other things out there to discuss...
1/ Even though this book is written in 1951, it is set in the early 21st century...actually ironically enough the book begins on July 12, 2007. What do you think of Heinlein's predictions of our current day versus the reality we live in? What aspect (technology, attitude, whatever) of his 2007 is most accurate when compared to today? Which is most off base? What do you think would have shocked Heinlein most about today when he sat there dreaming about it over 50 years ago?
2/ One of the most effective parts of the book (in my opinion) is how Heinlein depicts the Titans taking over control without the general population even being aware of it. Considering the times, do you think the Titans could have been representative of something other than aliens?

I agree with Urlik that the tepid advancement of space programs and the lack of any big changes in personal transportation would surprise the 1951 Heinlein, or any other sci-fi writer or futurist from that time. Otherwise, I don’t recall the story relying that much on technological developments or major social changes.

As for what the Titan takeover may have represented, a fear that the communist might follow the footsteps of the WWII Nazis is a reasonable proposition. On the other hand, he may have just wanted to tell a flying saucer/alien invasion story. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

On the other hand, he may have just wanted to tell a flying saucer/alien invasion story. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Oh, I definately agree that was Heinlein's primary motivation. I don't know whether communism or WWII were even on his mind when he wrote it, probably not actually. I was just musing on where some of his influences might have come from while he was doing such a good job (in my opinion) of writing about the aliens and their invasion, and some potential reasons why when we read it they feel real and plausible.

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Hey guys...check out the "Drugs may boost your brain power" thread in Science/Nature forum. Maybe Heinlein wasn't that far off with his Temporal Displacement drug in Puppet Masters, or atleast in his belief that our society would make efforts to pursue these types of drugs.

 

[Pyan]

It could also be a start towards the people of The Culture, in Iain M. Banks's novels, with the genetically altered ability to "gland" specific drugs for every occasion.

 

[Liz Pf]

I think the 1951 edition of RAH (the person) would have been appalled at the current state of education in America.

But then, I just got back from a gifted education conference. I and my kids thoroughly enjoyed ourselves (we had lots of friends there), but I am again reminded how marginalized bright kids have become in our education system.

No bearing on tPM, though.

Though I wonder if he really expected personal aircars in 2007.

OTOH, I think he would have been pleased at the "sexuality" freedom we now have, at least in my corner of the country.

--Liz
http://www.printfection.com/cartesianbear

 

[dsmith]

Just finished the book, but I won't be joining in the discussion much right now- I have a really big paper to write for my class. I really liked the book, and look forward to reading more Heinlein. And I don't have any classes this summer, so after April I'll have more time to join in on the discussion!

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

Glad you liked the book, and good luck with your paper!

 

[dsmith]

Glad you liked the book, and good luck with your paper!

Thanks!!

 

[j d worthington]

Okay... I only finished the book earlier today -- the last week has been extremely harried & hectic, and I'm afraid it looks as if it may be that way for a while yet, so I'm not sure how much I'll be around for the next few discussions -- but I'd like to throw out a few thoughts:

1. On Sen. Gottlieb. The way I read this, it did have a psychological effect on him, hence the wild-eyed gunslinging routine. Not crazed, but definitely right at the breaking point (understandably so -- and Sam/Elihu picks up on that and is in exactly the same frame of mind). But as for being ambulatory, etc., I'd also put this down to Heinlein's tendency to have the "competent man" perform in near-superhuman fashion in such a situation. He tended to have his protagonists (especially narrators) not be his genuine "competent man" models, for contrast. They were above the "fools and children", but below the genuine article -- here I think we see the influence of some of Neitzsche and Shaw (and no, I couldn't quote specifics from either, as I've not read either in nearly 30 years, save for bits and pieces). As with many things of this sort in Heinlein, this was more a matter of faith than genuine scientific observation; he had his own philosophical credo, and tended to ignore or override that which went against it, often becoming quite self-contradictory in the process. But, as Asimov said, "he wrote about it beautifully" and made it quite powerful for the reader, and difficult to refute -- because he had such faith in it, it carries conviction, whether it is accurate or not.

2. On Mary's behavior. I'm afraid I still have some problems with this one. While I can agree that she didn't actually argue with Sam because of the points made above, I do think there would have been at least a momentary flash -- barely notable, but there -- as she has been a very independent woman quite used to dealing with such situations on her own, and that's a learned response that doesn't just stop with the flick of a switch -- it's a gradual thing. So I think there really should have been at least some acknowledgment of that aspect, and this is a flaw. However, on the earlier discussion of how women think: "there is nothing wrong with Mary's brain but she jumps logic and arrives at her answers by instinct. Me, I have to worry it out by logic." (p. 237) Even though I had not read that passage when I made my earlier post, I'd say it rather fits.

3. On the Titans' adaptation (or lack of same)... the carapace may be a much easier adaptation for them, something which was acquired over time from exposure to several environments requiring it, or even from some tiny portion of biochemistry we share with other organisms, that the slugs can more easily utilize, whereas nine-day fever was a much more specific thing; it was Venerian in origin, apparently, and did have about a 90% mortality rate. The slugs never tried to regain Venus after the first failed attempt, so obviously word got out somehow... either through an uninfected slug whose host had verbal communication with those familiar with the scenario, or simply by an uninfected slug aware that all of its peers were dying, thus making Venus an undesirable acquisition -- perhaps they decided that this was going to wipe out the entire population, and therefore they would have no food resource. Each of these, I think, given the amount we have of the "slug psychology", would fit: they tended to win by as easy methods as possible, and didn't care for that which was too much of a struggle.

4. I'd like to throw this little relationship out there:

Vargas was insisting that nothing had been proved, while McIlvaine maintained that we were seeing something new to our concepts; an intelligent creature which was, by the fashion in which it was organized, immortal and continuous in its personal identity -- or its group identity; the argument grew confused. In any case McIlvaine was theorizing that such a creature would have continuous memory of all its experiences, not just from the moment of fission, but back to its racial beginning. He described the slug as a four-dimensional worm in space-time, intertwined with itself as a single organism, and the talk grew so esoteric as to be silly.

This seems to tie into some of Heinlein's other concepts -- that is, concepts he plays with concerning spirituality/immortality, etc. I'm thinking particularly of the "pink worm" in "Life-Line" here; but Heinlein's fascination with the concept of memory, other lives, reincarnation (as per Beyond This Horizon/Stranger in a Strange Land, etc.) also seems linked to this, to me. Any thoughts?

 

[TTBRAHWTMG]

As with many things of this sort in Heinlein, this was more a matter of faith than genuine scientific observation; he had his own philosophical credo, and tended to ignore or override that which went against it, often becoming quite self-contradictory in the process.

I've heard this before, but I want to understand where you saw it Puppet Masters...with the Senator?...with Sam?...I'm a bit confused here.

I do think there would have been at least a momentary flash -- barely notable, but there -- as she has been a very independent woman quite used to dealing with such situations on her own

"Get back into the car," I said. She continued to look west along the road. "I thought I might get in a shot or two," she answered, her eyes bright. "She's safe here," the youngster assured me. "We're holding them, well down the road." I ignored him. "Listen, you bloodthirsty little hellion," I snapped, "get back in that car before I break every bone in your body!" "Yes, Sam." She turned and did so.
Do you think that pause...that bright eyed look down the road and short protest of wanting to get a shot or two in, WAS her momentary flash? That it was after Sam reinforced his statement that she did the logic jump? I'm not sure on this one, but it seems to fit both your sentiment and Mollygurl's.

3. The slugs never tried to regain Venus after the first failed attempt

Thanks for this part...I read that section wrong for some reason. Your point made me re-read, and it is much cleaner than my memory had it. I was mixing Titanian people with Venusians for some reason.

This seems to tie into some of Heinlein's other concepts -- that is, concepts he plays with concerning spirituality/immortality, etc. I'm thinking particularly of the "pink worm" in "Life-Line" here;

I turn to Heinlein's own thoughts on this, as stated in The Robert Heinlein Interview...
REGARDING THE 'PINK WORM' in LIFELINE

Schulman: Okay. We might as well proceed to question number two, then.
Heinlein: "I'd like to know more about your theory that 'no matter how individualistic you feel, you are really only part of an evolutionary organism.'"
Schulman: Did I quote you correctly on that?
Heinlein: You've placed a little emphasis in there: "really only a part of." What I believe I said - the book is across the room and I'm not going to dig it out - was that "you are part of an evolutionary organism" not "really only a part of." Difference in emphasis, do you follow me?
Schulman: Yes.
Heinlein: Just as you are J. Neil Schulman and you are also part of the population of an area known as New York City. But it isn't a case of J. Neil Schulman being "really only a part of" New York City. You are J. Neil Schulman and you also happen to be one of that population group called by that name. Now, there is a matter of emphasis here. You say, "Can you prove this?" Well, I can't prove that you are "really only a part of" but I observe that you are only a part of. No emphasis on it, we simply observe it. You have parents. You have at least the potentiality of offspring. I assume that you go along more or less at least with evolutionary theory.
Schulman: To a certain extent.
Heinlein: ...Yes. We simply observe that we are part of this continuing process.
Schulman: Now, I think what I was asking here was the more philosophical question...in other words, I can see that I have parents and come from an evolutionary chain.
Heinlein: Yes.
Schulman: But the phrase "evolutionary organism" seems to suggest that you have one being with central control or something...or at least some central plan.
Heinlein: It doesn't...I don't mean to imply that. Evolutionists differ in their notions as to whether or not there is any central plan or whether the whole matter is automatic, or what it may be. All I really meant is that although we feel as if we were discrete individuals, if you consider it in terms of four dimensions with time as the fourth dimension, you are part of a branch...a branching deal, with an actual physical connection going back into the past and physical connection extending into the future until such time as it's chopped off. If you have no children then it's chopped off at that point. I have no children myself, however I'm not dead yet, either. I think, however, you are more interested in a later part here: "if so but we retain free will, why should we place the welfare of the whole organism above ourselves?" The question as to whether or not you place the welfare of your species - your race - above yourself is a matter for you to settle with yourself and for me to settle with me.

REGARDING 'NOUMENA' VERSUS 'PHENOMENA'

Heinlein: Let me invert these questions a bit. If you've read Stranger in a Strange Land, you've probably gathered what I think of faith. I do not regard faith as a basis on which to believe or disbelieve anything. On the other hand, Neil, there are many things - practically all of the important questions of philosophy - that are not subject to final answers purely by reason. This has been gone into a considerable extent by philosophers in the past, and there's even a term - a technical term - for that called "noumena" as opposed to "phenomena." Phenomena are things that you can grasp through your physical senses or through measurements made with your physical senses through instruments an so forth and so on; in other words, phenomena are things that we can know about the physical universe. Noumena translates as the unknowable things. The unknowable things: What is the purpose of the universe? Why are you here on this earth? What should a man do with his life? All of these are wide open, generalized, unlimited "whys." They are all noumena, and consequently they are not subject - by definition - these things are not subject to final answers simply by reason...(section about Lazarus playing both sides of most arguments cut out)...Now, do you happen to like chocolate malted milks?
Schulman: Uh, yes.
Heinlein: Now, do you like them better than strawberry malted milks?
Schulman: Yeah, I would say so.
Heinlein: Can you justify that by reason?
Schulman: No, I would say that it's a purely subjective judgment.
Heinlein: That's right. That is correct. It doesn't involve faith and it doesn't involve reason.
Schulman: But I'm using internal data; there is data which I am acting upon.
Heinlein: That's right. The internal data tells you that you like it better...but it doesn't tell you why. This applies also to a great many things about the universe: it's your own internal, subjective evaluation of it, not any final answers given by reason or rationality.

REGARDING THE AFTERLIFE

Schulman: Do you have oany opinions on that question? (Whether there is an afterlife)
Heinlein: I usually do not express them in newspapers.
Schulman: Off the record?
Heinlein: I have little or no objective data. So far as subjective data is concerned, I incline to the notion that when we die, we don't die all over. That we do not die all over. That there is something that persists. But even that - because that opens up all of the questions of philosophy and religion - I avoid discussing other than in fiction. You'll find it discussed in fiction endlessly, both in this last book Stranger in a Strange Land and Beyond This Horizon and lots of others.

 

[Mollygurl]

Do you think that pause...that bright eyed look down the road and short protest of wanting to get a shot or two in, WAS her momentary flash? That it was after Sam reinforced his statement that she did the logic jump? I'm not sure on this one, but it seems to fit both your sentiment and Mollygurl's.

I think you've captured it exactly TT.

REGARDING 'NOUMENA' VERSUS 'PHENOMENA'
Heinlein: I do not regard faith as a basis on which to believe or disbelieve anything… ...Phenomena are things that you can grasp through your physical senses or through measurements made with your physical senses through instruments an so forth and so on; in other words, phenomena are things that we can know about the physical universe. Noumena translates as the unknowable things. The unknowable things: What is the purpose of the universe? Why are you here on this earth? What should a man do with his life? All of these are wide open, generalized, unlimited "whys." They are all noumena, and consequently they are not subject - by definition - these things are not subject to final answers simply by reason.
Schulman: No, I would say that it's a purely subjective judgment…

Thanks for posting the interviews - they were great! The more I get to know Heinlein personally, the more I like and respect him.

REGARDING THE AFTERLIFE
…Heinlein: I have little or no objective data. So far as subjective data is concerned, I incline to the notion that when we die, we don't die all over. That we do not die all over. That there is something that persists. But even that - because that opens up all of the questions of philosophy and religion - I avoid discussing other than in fiction. ...

Wow! This may be getting off thread from PM but I totally agree with his ‘subjective’ beliefs and had I been the person interviewing him; I would have sat there nodding along like a damn fool! LOL. I think the second part of his statement is the most enlightening to me. He seems to be saying that he sees no point in discussing his personal beliefs because as no one can ever know what is “true” – all discussions/debates simply come down to differences in each individual’s philosophies and religions.